ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM 

AND 

HOW SECTION 4 OF THE CLAYTON ANTI- 
TRUST BILL HURTS MANUFACTURERS, 
DEALERS, AND PURCHASERS OF 
PATENTED ARTICLES 

BV 

GILBERT H. MONTAGUE 

OF NEW YORK 
ANSWERED BY 

FRANK Y. GLADNEY 

OF THE ST. LOUIS BAR 



^!^^ 

^ 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

191i 




OREGON -= 
- RULE -=: 

to. — 

- 1 ^ 



■ U.S.A. -E 

- 2 1 



- 3 ^ 



i^ 5 ^ 



4ii. 41 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM 

AND 

HOW SECTION 4 OF THE CLAYTON ANTI- 
TRUST BILL HURTS MANUFACTURERS, 
DEALERS, AND PURCHASERS OF 
PATENTED ARTICLES 



BY 



GILBERT H. MONTAGUE 

OF NEW YORK 
ANSWERED BY 

FRANK Y. GLADNEY 

OF THE ST. LOUIS BAR 



# 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1914 






«' 



B. OF D, 
SEP 21 I§14 



s- 



\J, 






^ 

> 






ANSWER TO THE "ASSAULT ON THE PATENT 

SYSTEM." 



The opponents of section 4 of the Clayton bill, as passed by the 
Senate, have just issued a small leaflet entitled an " Assault on the 
Patent System," copy of which is hereto attached. 

This circular is made up of an article printed in the Washington 
Post for August 29 and a letter addressed by a New York lawyer, 
Mr. Gilbert H. Montague, to the New York Evening Post and 
printed in that paper for August 31. 

A very casual comparison of these two articles shows that, if 
they were not written by the same nerson, at least the writers thereof 
had consulated together, and both articles are inspired by the same 
interests. 

The leading feature in both articles is a protest in the name 
of the " small," or " independent " manufacturer. In both articles 
great stress is laid upon the necessity of allowing the manufac- 
turer of a " delicate " patented mechanism to dictate the supplies 
to be used therewith, to " insure himself in seeing that it was prop- 
erly used after it left his hand." Mr. Montague's letter sets forth 
this argument by a quotation from Mr. Leonard, an inventor (p. 8 
of the circular). The article in the Washington Post contains the 
same argument expressed in exactly the same phraseology (see p. 
4), although the quotation marks are omitted and Mr. Leonard's 
name is not mentioned. 

Finally, Mr. Montague says in his letter that the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the so-called bathtub case — 

showed that the patent law affords no shelter to restraints of trade against 
the Sherman law. Every evil, therefore, which the Senate in adopting the 
provision above quoted sought to remove, has already' been removed by the 
Sherman law. 

This statement is echoed in the Washington Post article thus: 

Every possible abuse or unreasonable extension of this entirely legitimate 
right (viz: the right of the owner of a patented device to compel the pur- 
chaser to obtain unpatented supplies exclusively from him) is already pre- 
vented by the Sherman law, as has been shown in numerous decisions. 

Thus the internal evidence is convincing that one and the same 
opposition is back of these two writings. Moreover, it is clear that 
Mr. Montague either actually wrote the Washington Post article 
or supplied all the material from which it was written. Therefore, 
it becomes important to attend closely upon Mr. Gilbert H. Montague 
and ascertain the strength, as well as the identity of the opposition 
voiced by him. 

60560—14 3 



4 ASSAULT OX THE PATENT SYSTEM. 

MR. 3I0NTAGUE : THE PUBLICIST AND HIS' CLIENTS. 

Fortunately, Mr. Montague has been veiy industrious with respect 
to this subject matter, at least, since 1912. During the course of his 
activity he has fully made knoAAii his views, and his clients have 
indicated the identity of some of the interests he represents. Thus, 
Mr. AVilliam H. IngersoU, of ''dollar-watch" fame, while pleading 
before the House Committee on Patents June 10, 1914, for the enact- 
ment of a law that would enable the patent owners to dictate resale 
prices of patented articles throughout the United States, v\^as asked 
whether or not Congress had power to pass such a law. He an- 
swered that his attorneys had so advised him. He was asked to 
name his attornej^s, and he named two, one being Mr. Gilbert H. 
Montague. Mr. Ingersoll is at the head of the resale price pool. 
Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Montague represents, among other 
interests, the resale price fixers, who have been incessantly active 
against section 4. 

In April and May, 1912, M\\ Montague contributed two articles 
to the Yale Law Journal. The first was headed '" The Sherman 
Antitrust Act and the patent law "' and the second " The Supreme 
Court on patents." 

The second contribution is a glorification of the Supreme Court's 
decision in the celebrated mimeograph case (Henry v. A. B. Dick). 
When we compare that article with Mr. Montague's letter to the New 
York Evening Post, it is very clear that Mr. Montague has set about 
to save the '' tying " clause restrictions in connection with patented 
articles, and to that end he has no regard for consistency^ or accuracy 
of statement. 

PUS DEFENSE OF THE TYING RESTRICTIONS. 

In the second article in the Yale Law Review he wrote of the 
mimeograph decision thus: 

Not since the creation of the patent system has the Supreme Court ren- 
dered a better considered decision affecting patent rights. 

In 1914 he knows that the Members of Congress and the public 
generally are overwhelmingly of a contrary opinion. He knows that 
not a single man in the House or Senate undertook to defend that 
decision. Therefore, in his letter to the Post, he asserts merely that 
section 4 " reaches far beyond the facts presented in that case." But 
he makes no attempt to defend what he says is the best considered 
decision rendered in the history of the patent S3^stem. 

Again, in the first of the law review articles above mentioned, he 
asserts that the bathtub decision in no Avay cuts down the rule of 
law announced in the mimeograph case. Of the bathtub case he 
says : 

The agreements related primarily to the manufacture and sale of articles 
which in no way were covered by the patent in question. 

That is Mr. Montague's view in 1912 when glorifying the mimeo- 
graph decision and elaborating upon the unrestricted powers of pat- 
ent owners. But in 1914 Mr. Montague is set upon saving the tying 
clauses upheld in the mimeograph case. He will now persuade us 
that they have been wiped out by the bathtub decision. 



i 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 5 

Of this decision he ssljs in his letter to the Evening Post : 

The Supreme Court * * * showed that the patent hiw aftords uo shelter 
to restraints of trade against the Sherman law. Every evil, therefore, which 
the Senate, in adopting the provision above quoted, sought to remove has 
alreadj' been removed by the Sherman law. 

In 1912 the bathtub decision has not touched the mimeograph case; 
in 1914 it has wiped out all the evils of that decision as viewed and 
anticipated by the Senate and House of Representatives. This is 
why we say Mr. Montague has no regard for consistency of statement. 

^ER. MONTAGUE V. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE. 

But his writings further show that he is either grossly ignorant of 
the attitude of Chief Justice White or that he has intentionally 
and deliberately attempted to mislead both lawyers and the public 
concerning the attitude of the Chief Justice. 

In the second of the law review articles aboA'e referred to, Mr. 
Montague seeks to minimize and weaken the propositions set out 
in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice in the mimeograph 
case. Xo one would think of criticizing Mr. Montague merely be- 
cause of his attempt to refute the reasoning of the Chief Justice. 
That is the prerogative of ever}^ law^^er, and, indeed, of every lay- 
man, and the strength of an argument never appears so clearly as 
in ineffectual attempts to destro}^ it. But Mr. Montague makes it 
appear that the Chief Justice is guilty of reversing himself. He 
quctes a glowing passage from the decision of the Supreme Court 
in the case of Bement v. National Harrow Co. (186 U. S., TO), de- 
cided in May, 1902. After quoting the paragraph, ** this cogent 
reasoning — vjith lohich the Chief Justice entirely agreed — covers the 
whole ground" (viz, covered by the majority of the court in the 
mimeograph case; the italics are mine). Preliminary to quoting 
the paragraph and concerning it he says, "in which Chief Justice 
White, then an Associate Justice, participated and concurred." Just 
a sentence later he continues : 

The logic (of the Bement decision) which commanded the e^npport of Asso- 
ciate Justice Vrhite completely exposes the fallacy into which the Chief Justice 
(White) has fallen in his dissenting opinion (i. e.. in the mimeograph case) by 
departing from the principles to which he formerly gave his adherence. 

Not content with asserting three times within the space of one page, 
this alleged reversal of front b}^ the Chief Justice, he returns to it a 
few pages later, and says : 

The passages above quoted from Bement v. National Hdrrotr Co., in tuhmh 
Chief Justice White, then Associate Justice, participated ami concurred show 
how long these princii)les have been fully recognized. (The italics are mine.) 

Here, then, in four positive statements, it is asserted, the Chief 
Justice of the Nation has completely contradicted and reversed him- 
self on a matter that vastly concerns the public. If he will do that 
on one occasion he will do it on another. The people despise an 
official who changes from day to day, and they would despise the 
utterances of a Chief Justice^vho in' 1912 would take back and re- 
pudiate what he had said in 1902. But the Chief Justice has been 
guilty of no inconsistency or contradiction whatever. Mr. Monta- 
gue's statements — all four of them — are absohitely false. The Chief 



6 A.SSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 

Justice had not a thing in the world to do with the decision of the 
case of Bement v. National Harrow Co. He did not " participate " 
or " concur " in anything said or done in that case. Mr. Montague 
knows this, or his ignorance of the fact renders his stupidity as 
dangerous as willful perversion in him would be. The very last lines 
of the opinion of the Supreme Court in this Bement case (186 U. S., 
95) are as follows: 

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Gray, and Mr. Justice White did not hear the 
argument, and tooli no part in the decision of this case. 

Those words comprise the conclusion of the court's opinion in 
every edition of the reports. They show that the Chief Justice had 
nothing whatever to do with the decision and that he is not respon- 
sible for one single proposition in the opinion. 

It seems scarcely worth while to examine in detail what Mr. Mon- 
tague has to say by way of objection to section 4. 

He has shown that he can make contradictory uses of the bathtub 
decision, at one time declaring that it in no way qualified the mimeo- 
graph decision, which he regards as the best considered decision since 
the creation of the patent system ; and at another time asserting that 
it wiped out all the evils sought to be eradicated by the Senate in 
attempting to change the law of the mimeograph case. He has 
attempted to discredit the views of the Chief Justice by falsely im- 
puting to the Chief Justice an open-air flip-flop in argument which 
he himself glaringly exhibits. 

MR. Montague's x\ttempt*to save monopoly. 

Mr. Montague's letter to the ^ew York EA^ening Post is worth just 
as much as his charges of inconsistency directed against the Chief 
Justice — and no more. 

He starts out with a flourish that section 4 is ''the hardest blow 
ever delivered to the patent system." Section 4 has nothing to do 
with patent rights, or the patent system. It has to do only with 
contracts involving patented articles and processes. 

Next he says : 

Only patented articles and manufacturers of and dealers in patented articles 
would fall within this prohibition. 

Reshaping the same thought later, he says the tying clauses have 
been and are now lawful, and then, to quote — 

under the provision adopted by the Senate, these agreements and arrange- 
ments still would be lawful, except when they happened to include any article 
covered by a patent. 

Of course, the section applies only to patented articles for the 
reason that the tying clauses and conditions never have been and 
can not be imposed in connection with unpatented articles. Suppose 
the mimeograph had been unpatented, how could the manufacturer 
have sued the user for infringement of a patent? Mr. Montague 
knows that if a nianufacturer of an office desk should offer to sell 
it only on condition that it be used with ink, paper, and pens ob- 
tained from the maker of the desk, that office furniture business 
would go to some one who sells desks Avithout any " conditions." To 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 7 

make section 4 apply to unpatented articles would be like prohibiting 
the killing of alligators in North Dakota. 

Next, Mr. Montague laments the deplorable fate under section 4 
of the "independent" manufacturer struggling against entrenched 
monopoly. He would have us believe that these " tying " contracts 
are the only resource of small manufacturers seeking to compete 
with monopoly. But this is the view of a man standing on his 
head ; in it things literally are turned upside down. If a pigmy and 
a giant are in a struggle, and there is but one weapon of attack 
available, no one doubts which of the combatants will wield that 
weapon. The independent manufacturer of relatively small means 
can not impose conditions. Monopoly first gets control of the market 
and then forces the conditions or restrictions, and thereby perpetu- 
ally keeps the independents out. Section 4 seeks to end this abuse and 
liberate the independents. 

Then Mr. Montague commiserates the ignorant dealers who may 
sign the contracts without knowing that any of the articles described 
are patented, and thereby invite a prosecution and conviction of 
themselves for having committed a crime! This is extravagant. 
Waiving the question as to whether or not dealers or licensees could 
be guilty of violating the statute, it is absolutely certain they will 
not violate the law so long as their liberty of action and their profits 
are vastly enlarged by obeying it. Suppose the tariff on a given 
article is repealed, how many importers would remain ignorant of 
that fact, and continue to pay, or offer to pay, duty ? When section 
4 becomes a part of the law, purchasers and licensees who will violate 
it will be about as numerous as liberated convicts who attempt to 
break into jail. 

Finally, Mr. Montague dwells on those instances of " complicated 
and delicate patented mechanisms," which, in order to work effi- 
ciently and maintain the reputation of the manufacturer, must be 
used only with accessories supplied by the owner of the patent. 
This is another argument based on the assumed ignorance of the 
purchaser or user. It amounts to this: A woman might buy a 
patented sewing machine. If left free to do so, she might use 
vinegar for lubricating oil, rotten thread, and attempt to sew 
through a piece of zinc, and the reputation of the sewing-machine 
manufacturer would be ruined. To prevent this the patent owner 
ought to be allowed to sell the machine on condition that it be used 
only with thread, oil, and cloth obtained from him. Of course this 
argument applies with equal force to unpatented articles. The 
packing houses sell fertilizer, and much of it is said to produce no 
results on the farmers' crops. 

No doubt this is hard on the reputation of the sellers of fertilizer, 
and it may be due to the ignorance of the farmer in planting worth- 
less seed. Why not let the manufacturers of fertilizer sell it " on 
condition " that it be used only with seed purchased from them. 
This would be paternalism in industry. After section 4 is a part of 
the law purchasers and licensees will still be free to get their un- 
patented supplies from the patent owners. Heretofore there has 
been no such freedom; the patent owners have shown their teeth, 
threatened suit for infringement, and forced the situation. They 
have sought to justify this lately, just as Mr. Montague does, by 



8 ASSAULT OX THE PATEIs^T SYSTEM. 

pessimistic mutterings about the ignorant purchaser and user. Some 
one is going to be hit by section 4, but it will not be the dealers, 
licensees, or consumers, nor will it be the " small,'' '' independent '' 
manufacturers. 

All persons have their choice between the views advanced by Mr. 
Gilbert H. Montague and by Chief Justice AAliite. Mr. Montague 
regards the mimeograph case as the best-considered decision in the 
history of the patent sj^stem. The Chief Justice declared one of 
the reasons for his dissent was to make it clear that if the law 
remained as announced by the majority that would be owing to 
the inactivity of Congress after the evils had been pointed out. 
Mr. Montague says section 4 is a blow at the patent system. The 
Chief Justice asserted the mimeograph decision was a blow at the 
general welfare of the people, and he challenged Congress to wipe 
it out. Section 4 is the response of Congress to the warning of the 
Chief Justice. For whom has Mr. Montague sent up the cry of 
distress ? Is he seeking merely to " promote the progress of science 
and the useful arts ? " 

Frank Y. Gladney. 

September 9. 1914. 



I 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 



How Section 4 of Clayton Antitrust Bill Hurts Manufac- 
turers. Dealers, and Purchasers of Patented Articles. 

[Reprinted from Washington Post, Aug. 29, 1914. and the Evening Post (N. Y.) Atfg. 

31, 1914.] 

INTRODUCTION?. 

Everything and everybody connected with the patent system is endangered 
by the jn-ovision adopted by the Senate on August 26. 1914, as an amendment 
to the Chiyton a.ntitriist bill (H. R. 15657). which makes criminal every con- 
tract relating to any patented article that contains any provisions " the effect of 
which" may be either to require the purchaser to acquire from the seller any- 
thing else not protected by the patent or in any way to restrict the purchaser 
" from using any article." Everybody who is party to any such contract is made 
liable to a fine of $5,000 or a year's imprisonment or both. 

This provision subjects manufacturers, dealers, and purchasers of patented 
articles to fine and imprisonment for doing what manufacturers, dealers, and 
purchasers of unpatented articles always have done, and. under the terms of 
this provision, may still continue to do with absolute impunity. 

IKv^iiinted from the Washington Post, Aug. 29. 1914.] 

HITTING THE WRONG MARK. 

Aiming nt hirge corjiorations which, hj the use of what are known as " tie-up 
contracts." prevent their customers from purchasing any machinery or wares 
from other sources of supply, the Senate, by the adoption of an amendment to 
the Clayton bill, has really restricted the competitive operations of smaller 
concerns fighting for their existence. 

The purpose of the section which had been adopted is to make it unlawful 
for any person to insert a clause in a contract relating to the sale or lease of or 
license to use any article or process protected by a patent, the effect of which 
will be to restrict the purcha.ser or lessee from using any other article. While 
the object is to strike at large coiiiorations which have strengthened them- 
selves by such exclusive contracts, the burden will fall heaviest upon the con- 
cerns which are just establishing themselves and which have to make exclusive 
contracts in order that better known machines or patented articles, handled by 
the same agent, may not be given precedence. 

Aside from the discrimination against the owners of patents, it should be 
clear thv.t the smaller dealers in patented articles will now have no protection 
against the larger concerns. They will not be able to make terms for exclusive 
use of their machines or the exclusive sale of their products. The better known 
machines and products thus will have a distinct advantage over those which are 
just being introduced. Patents which were intended to encourage inventiveness 
will lose a large part of their value. 

Moreover, it may be th^it the article is of such a nature that in order that It 
shall work properly it requires very great care in the conditions of use. In 
some instances a man's market for a good article would be completely destroyed 
if he could not insure himself in seeing that it was properly used after it 
left his hands. Under the section in.serted in the Clayton law, :in inventor's 
power over his own device, once it is leased, will be nil. 

Agreements between customers, manufacturers, and dealers by which dealers 
furnish and customers obt;nn patented articles, on condition that they use 
them only with supplies specially prepared for them, are often absolutely nec- 
essary. Every possible abuse or unreasonable extension of this entirely legiti- 

9 



10 ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 

mate right is already prevented by the Sherman law, as has been shown in 
numerous decisions. The only result of additional legislation will be to confuse 
the Sherman law, which has been growing gradually clearer to lawyers and the 
business world. 

[Reprinted from The New York Evening Post, Aug. 31, 1914.] 

PERIL TO THE PATENT SYSTEM : GILBERT H. MONTAGUE POINTS OUT DESTRUCTIVE 
EFFECTS OF AMENDMENT TO PENDING ANTITRUST LAW PASSED BY SENATE — SHER- 
MAN LAW ADEQUATE. 

The Editor of The Evening Post : 

Sir: The hardest blow ever delivered to the patent system of the United 
States fell on August 26, 1914, when the Senate, in Committee of the Whole, 
adopted as section 4 of the so-called Clayton antitrust bill (H. R. 15657) the 
following : 

" That it shall not be lawful to insert a condition in any contract relating to 
the sale or lease of or license to use any article or process protected by a patent 
or patents the effect of which will be to prohibit or restrict the purchaser, 
lessee, or licensee from using any article or class of articles, whether patented 
or not, or any patented process, supplied or owned by any person other than 
the seller, lessor, or licensor, or his nominees, or the effect of which will be 
to require the purchaser, lessee, or licensee to acquire from the seller, lessor, 
or licensor, or his nominees any article or class of articles not protected by the 
patent; and any such conditions shall be null and void as being in restraint of 
trade and contrary to public policy. Any person violating the provisions of this 
section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof 
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not ex- 
ceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court." 

Only patented articles and manufacturers of and dealers in patented articles 
would fall within this prohibition. The provision is, therefore, directed solely 
against patented articles and patent owners. 

Adopted for the avowed purpose of repealing the rule of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the Mimeograph case {Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 
U. S., 1), this provision reaches far beyond the facts presented in that case, 
and would enmesh hundreds of manufacturers, dealers, and users of patented 
articles that never by any stretch of imagination can be claimed to be simi- 
larly situated to any of the parties in that case. 

An independent manufacturer, seeking to establish himself in the face of 
competition from older concerns, often builds up a good will for his business 
by advertising and selling under the same brand all of his various products. 
He selects at local distributing points dealers who will undertake to push his 
entire " family of products," and to handle them exclusively, or at any rate 
to hpnrlle a specified variety and quantity of the various products of the 
" family " for a specified period in consideration of a special discount. 

Under the provision above quoted this arrangement would still be permitted, 
so long as none of these products are patented. 

If, however, any patented article happens to be included under such an ar- 
rangement, with the result that the agreement requires the dealer to buy 
both the patented article and also another article not covered by that patent, 
then the manufacturer and the dealer both would become liable to a fine of 
$5,000 and to a year's imprisonment. 

might FALL on INNOCENT PERSONS. 

These penalties, under the express terms of this provision, might fall upon 
entirely innocent persons. 

While the manufacturer generally knows whether any article or part of an 
article which he manufactures is "protected by a patent." the dealer gen- 
erally does not know. Yet the penalties proposed would apply both to the 
manufacturer and to the dealer. 

When the articles are marketed through the .iobbing trade, both parties to the 
agreement might uiiwitrinely be subjected to fine and imprisonment. For the 
provision reads simply " that it shall not be lawful to insert a condition in any 
contract relating to the sa.le * * * of * * * any article * * * pro- 
tected by a patent or patents the effect of which will be to * * * restrict 
the purchaser * * * from using any article * * * supplied or owned 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 11 

by any person other than the seller * * * or the effect of which will be 
to require the purchaser * * * to acquire from the seller * * * any 
article * * * not protected by the patent." 

Ignorance by the parties to such a contract of the fact that an article cov- 
ered by the agreement was " protected by a patent " would be no excuse. Ab- 
sence of any intention to stretch the patent right beyond the article which it 
covers would be no defense. The crime would have been committed, and the 
penalties of fine and imprisonment would attach, regardless of the ignorance, 
or knowledge, or good intentions, or bad intentions of any of the parties. No 
matter who was responsible for inserting the forbidden condition in the con- 
tract, all the parties to the contract would be equally liable. 

Still another class of agreements fall within the prohibition of this provi- 
sion. 

Agreements between customers, manufacturers, and dealers, T)y which manu- 
facturers and dealers furnish, and customers obtain, complicated and delicate 
]iatented mechanisms, on condition that they use them only with supplies spe- 
cially prepared for them, or in continuity with machines especially adapted to 
them, are often absolutely necessary. 

H. Ward Leonard, one of the best-known independent inventors in the Ameri- 
can field, and an oflicer of the Inventors' Guild that comprises the leading in- 
dependent inventors of the country, defended just such agreements as these 
in his testimony before the Patent Committee of the House of Representatives. 

"It may be," Mr. Leonard declared, "thnt the article is of such nnture that 
in order that it shall work properly, it shall require very great care in select- 
ing certain conditions of use, certain materials to be used in connection with it. 
It certainly is a fact that in some instances a mnn's market for a good article 
would be completely destroyed if he could not insure himself in seeing that it 
was properly used after it left his hands. 

Under the provision adopted by the Senate, however, these reasonable and 
necessary agreements would be made criminal. 

AGREEMENTS ALWAYS LAWFUL. 

Let it be always remembered that, under the existing law, all the agree- 
ments and arrangements above described, which have been approved for 
generations by the highest standards of business practice and business morality, 
are entirely lawful; and that, under the provision adopted by the Senate, these 
agreements and arrangements still would be lawful, except when they hap- 
pened to include any article covered by a patent. 

The Supreme Court of the United States in the bath-tub case (United States 
V. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co., 226 U. S., 20) showed that the patent 
law affords no shelter to restraints of trade against the Sherman law. Every 
evil, therefore, which the Senate, in adopting the provision above quoted, 
sought to remove has already been removed by the Sherman law. 

The only effect, therefore, of this provision would be to make the mere pos- 
-session of a patent an element of crime, and to forbid manufacturers, jobbers, 
dealers, and purchasers of patent articles to flo things which the owners of 
every other form of property would be left absolutely free to do. Unlucky 
patent owners, caught in the far-reaching net of this provision, may reflect that, 
if they had only dealt in unpatented goods, instead of spending time and 
.money developing new inventions which their patents pul)lished to the world to 

\enrl that in IT years the world may use them without cost, they could have 
avo^v. all of their misfortunes. 

Is th'Aie way by which Congress seeks to " promote the progress of science 
and useful^g?" 

Gilbert H. Montagu]:. 

New Fork, Augx^A- 

Protests against sectici of t^^ Clayton Anti-trust bill (H. Pv. 15657) 
should be addressed to an^^^^^or or Congressman, and especially to the 
chairmen of the following com^iL^^^ having charge of the bill : 

Committee of the Senate on Jui'^^y- Charles A. Culberson, chairman, of 
Texas; Lee S. Overman, of North Cl^^^^ ' William E. Chilton, of West Vir- 
ginia: James A. O'Gorman of New^Y^' E>uncan U. Fletcher, of Florida; 
James A. Reed, of Missouri • Henrv F 'a?^^^' ^^ Arizona ; John K. Shields, 
of Tennessee; Thomas J. Walsh of Montan ^^^® Smith, of Georgia; Clar- 
ence D. Clark, of Wyoming; Kniite Nelson ot'""^^^^^ ' ^^^^iam P. Dilling- 



12 



ASSAULT ON THE PATENT SYSTEM. 



ham, of Vermont; George Sutherland, of Utah; Frank B. Brandegee, of Con- 
necticut; William E. Borah, of Idaho; Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa; Elihu 
Root, of New York. _ ^. . ,rr ^ v.^. 

Committee on the House of Representatives on Judiciary: Edtvm Y. Webb, 
chairman, of North Carolina; Charles C. Carlin, of Virginia; John C. Floyd, 
of Arkansas; Robert Y. Thomas, jr., of Kentucky; H. Garland Dupre, of 
Louisiana ; Walter I. McCoy, of New Jersey ; Daniel J. McGillicuddy, of Maine ; 
Jack Beall, of Texas; Joseph Taggart, of Kansas; Louis FitzHenry, of Illi- 
nois; John F. Carew, of New York; John B. Peterson, of Indiana; John J. 
Mitchell of Massachusetts; Andrew J. Volstead, of Minnesota; John M. Nel- 
son of Wisconsin ; Dick T. Morgan, of Oklahoma ; Henry G. Danf orth, of New 
York ; L. C. Dyer, of Missouri ; George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania ; Walter M. 
Chandler, of New York. 

O 



1 



m^m» 






.i^yy^ ■•.;.<fc\ 



